Case Digest (G.R. No. L-64250)
Facts:
Superlines Transportation Co., Inc. and Erlito Lorca v. Hon. Luis L. Victor, et al., G.R. No. 64250, September 30, 1983, the Supreme Court En Banc, Escolin, J., writing for the Court.
On December 19, 1982, a collision occurred at Lumilang, Calauag, Quezon between Pantranco South Express, Inc. Bus No. 3008, driven by Rogelio Dillomas, and Superlines Transportation Co., Inc. Bus No. 331, then driven by Erlito Lorca, causing the instantaneous death of passenger Cayetano P. Moralde. In consequence, several civil actions followed in different fora.
On January 4, 1983, Superlines filed Civil Case No. 1671-G in the Court of First Instance of Quezon, Gumaca Branch, against Pantranco and its driver Rogelio Dillomas, alleging that the recklessness and negligence of the Pantranco driver proximately caused the accident and that Pantranco was negligent in selecting and supervising its driver.
On February 11, 1983, private respondents Timotea T. Moralde (widow) and her children (Cayetano Jr., Alexander, Ramon, Emmanuel Moralde and Jocelyn Moralde Abellana) filed Civil Case No. N-4338 in the Regional Trial Court of Cavite against both Superlines (and its driver Erlito Lorca) and Pantranco (and its driver Rogelio Dillomas). The Moralde plaintiffs pleaded quasi-delict against Superlines and culpa-contractual against Pantranco.
On February 28, 1983, Superlines and driver Lorca moved to dismiss the Cavite case (No. N-4338) on the ground of pendency of Civil Case No. 1671-G in Gumaca. Respondent Judge Luis L. Victor denied the motion in an order dated March 28, 1983, and denied reconsideration on April 27, 1983.
Aggrieved, petitioners sought relief before the Intermediate Appellate Court (the petition for certiorari and prohibition with preliminary injunction was denied due course). Thereafter petitioners filed the present petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court to set aside the Intermediate Appellate Court decision affirming the Cavite judge’s orders. The parties debated whether the Moralde plaintiffs should have intervened in the Gumaca action under Section 2, Rule 12 of the Rules of Court or whether dismissal/consolidation was appropriate; petitioners relied on precedents like Municipality of Hagonoy v. Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources and Orellano v. Alvestir, while respondents and the courts below...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Regional Trial Court of Cavite (Branch XVI) err in denying the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. N-4338 on the ground of pendency of Civil Case No. 1671‑G in Gumaca?
- If not, was consolidation of Civil Case No. 1671‑G with Civil Case No. N-4338 and transfer of the Gumaca records to Cavit...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)